911 reasons for which jimmies were rustled
-
if a planet is traveling nearer the speed of light with respect to us, their meter as measured by us is longer than ours as measured by us.
And their seconds as measured by us are also longer, such that the speed of light as measured by either of us - that is, the relationship between light, local seconds and local metres - always works out the same. Which, given the definition of the metre as the distance light travels in vacuum in a specific quantity of seconds, should not be surprising.
-
A truly uniform measurement would calculate against the inertial frame of the cosmic background radiation.
Since cosmic radiation propagates in all directions, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "the inertial frame" here.
-
-
It's all useless anyway. Since the Universe is constantly expanding distances change all the time from a reference frame outside the Universe. We're doomed.
-
stabbing sprees in China
It's what the fashionable Palestinians are doing these days.
Gaza ‘Hitler’ Boutique Offers Hot Masked Mannequins Brandishing Knives
The Hitler store in Gaza shows off the latest in knives, flags and fashion.
-
How is that different from "you can find"?
Do they not teach reading comprehension where you live? Go on, see if you can figure it out.
-
That does not mean that you should make it easy for them, does it? Guns are best used against zombies. But not against students or other people. One could use them against their own forehead when they are an asshole. But who has an asshole at its forehead?
-
Rupert Sheldrake said that c (the c in E = mcc) was not constant! He checked old scientific documents until the 40ies of the last millennium and found out that the measurements of c changed over time. What if the velocity of c depends on the CPU load of the "computer" our simulation runs on?
-
Then it's shitty code and you should file a bug report.
-
He checked old scientific documents until the 40ies of the last millennium and found out that the measurements of c changed over time.
Rupert Sheldrake is notorious for being able to see patterns where none exist.
My mother once tried to convince me that Sheldrake's ideas about morphic resonance might possibly have some merit. She even bought me the book. I didn't often disagree with my mother, who was clever and wise, but boy howdy did she have that one wrong.
-
Yeah, I am not fan of esoteric stuff either. But given the circumstances that c really changed over time, then it is not constant. Whether this is observed by Rupert Sheldrake or Stephen Hawking himself does not matter. If this observation is real (I do not possess no sources), then our understanding of the universe is at best incomplete, or at worst just plain wrong.
Actually, I just made that example to introduce the concept of us living in a simulation. No, not the fukken Matrix. More like us in the future made this simulation and we in the present live in it. Some like that.
-
Whether this is observed by Rupert Sheldrake or Stephen Hawking himself does not matter.
Quite so. Whether or not the observations are interpreted by Rupert Sheldrake or somebody with actual clue matters quite a lot.
-
our understanding of the universe is at best incomplete
and ever more shall be so.
-
That is the truth! +1.
-
Well... we might come to a complete understanding of the universe one day. OTOH, we might die from the human condition... you know... the one law that states that though humans are mostly nice, there are some pricks who destroy everything and the good ones are too nice to ever think that people could be actual assholes.
-
we might come to a complete understanding of the universe one day.
If I recall correctly I was in Grade 3 when I realized that having memorized all the times tables up to 12x12 I now knew everything there was to know.
-
-
I now knew everything there was to know.
universities are truly storehouses of knowledge: students arrive from school confident that they know nearly everything, and they leave years later certain that they know practically nothing. Where did the knowledge go in the meantime? Into the university, of course, where it is carefully dried and stored.
-
Yes, I know you lot over the pond have a document almost as archaic as the system of non-standard measures you obstinately stick to, but you ignore it anyway, only reading the bits you want to. Are you personally part of a
well regulated militia
You are using an old argument that has already been rejected by the supreme court.
-
Of course I mean not the individual that knows everything, but the society or interconnected individual computing entities (brains, circuits, whatevers). But in order for us reaching that stage we need to survive as a species or more so as a civilization. Where the fuck is skynet? But a good skynet that loves people.
-
I don't believe there is a limit on knowledge. There will always be new things to learn
-
the society or interconnected individual computing entities (brains, circuits, whatevers)
will always contain less information than the universe it attempts to model. The laws of physics are a pretty good compression algorithm, but compression will always have limits.
-
I agree that it might be the case that new possibilities or ideas form as new knowledge is gathered and thus the accumulation of knowledge (ideas, sexual practices,music, mind altering drugs) never stops. I would still say that the existing knowledge in the universe is finite, and thus can be discovered to its fullest extent.
-
I would still say that the existing knowledge in the universe is finite, and thus can be discovered to its fullest extent.
I would respond that the finite vs infinite distinction is completely irrelevant when contemplating the quantity of information required for a full representation of the state of the universe. I would also respond that unless the universe is representable as a quine, which seems quite unlikely, no such full representation could be physically accommodated even in principle.
-
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
-
No, because what you're invoking there boils down to an attempt to evaluate 0/0 and that result is undefined, not infinite. Given that your argument stipulates that there is no distance, it should not be surprising that it sheds no light on defining a unit for it.
You're correct in the case of 0/0.
However, calculus tells us that as the speed approaches light, what you measure to be distances in your direction approach 0. Therefore, what you'd measure to be a meter in your direction would approach infinity from the perspective of someone stationary.
That is how you can tell that objects traveling faster have relatively longer meters.
I'm on Planet Half-Light-Speed. My planet measures to be 10 [distance units] diameter.
I'm approaching Planet Almost-No-Speed. It's inhabitants measures their planet to be 10 [distance units] diameter.
I measure their planet, in front of me, to be 1 [distance units] deep, 10 [distance units] wide.
In their direction, my [distance unit] are longer than theirs.If I start measuring from the moment I am parallel with the front of their planet, to the moment I'm parallel to the back of their planet, I will say I traveled 1 [distance unit]. They will say I traveled 10 [distance units].
However, I will calculate that it took me 1 [time unit] to travel that distance.
They will calculate that it took me 10 [time units] to travel that distance.Their calculation : 10 [distance units] / 10 [time units] = 1
My calculation: 1 [distance unit] / 1 [time unit] = 1We'll both agree on speed, but not on distance or time.
And their seconds as measured by us are also longer, such that the speed of light as measured by either of us - that is, the relationship between light, local seconds and local metres - always works out the same.
That is true. I just showed how that remains true, even though we'd disagree on distance.
-
We'll both agree on speed, but not on distance or time.
We will, however, continue to agree on the relationship between our local distance measurements, our local time measurements, and the speed of light. Which is not what you said earlier:
If you move closer to the speed of light, your seconds don't change, but your second compared to the guy back on earth is longer.
So from your perspective, the light traveled farther in the same amount of time.
-
No matter how fast you go, light MEASURES to go the same speed. Therefore, if you go faster than someone else, light MEASURES to go farther in your time duration, than theirs.
You say 1 [time unit] passed.
You'd say light traveled 1 [distance units]They'd say 10 [time unit] passed.
They'd say light traveled 10 [distance units].Again, you both agree on the speed.
It's only when you slowed down to their speed, that you'd calculate yourself to have gone farther than you did at the faster speed.
-
I suspect you're conflating your own speed with the speed of light, and getting confused as a result. I think you need to specify exactly what it is that you and the guy on the planet in the other inertial frame are supposed to be disagreeing about.
Because whatever it is, it won't be the distance that light travels in any given time.
-
distance that light travels
As measured by your own frame of reference.
When you introduce more than one frame of reference, those distances and times become relative.
If you didn't disagree on the distance light traveled, then as you speed up, light would appear to slow down.
You're conflating speed with distance.
As distance traveled by light increases, the time taken to travel that distance increases, from all frames of reference.
But, if a person traveling faster has longer seconds, they must have longer meters. Therefore, compared to the slower frame of reference, they, and the light they were falling behind, traveled farther.
-
Sure. But when you respond to
At any speed you can attain, one metre is the distance light travels in vacuum in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds.
by saying
If you move closer to the speed of light, your seconds don't change, but your second compared to the guy back on earth is longer.
So from your perspective, the light traveled farther in the same amount of time.
What light, what travel and what amount of time are you talking about? Because it sounds like you're disagreeing in some way but buggered if I know what.
-
Because it sounds like you're disagreeing in some way but buggered if I know what.
This whole discussion started because I said, relative to two frames of reference, meters are different distances.
And I was met with disagreement.
And I'm trying to show that at any given speed, the speed of light remains the same. So if a person experiences less time, they must also experience less distance.
Therefore, their meters are longer compared to someone going slower.
And you keep disagreeing with me.
This all started because of the claim that meters are superior to inches, which I agree with in the absence of culture and pragmatic measurements that don't require precision.
However, meters have a flaw, in that different frames of reference produces different lengths.
Someone moving faster than you, will measure an object moving slower than them as shorter, than you do.
-
That's not a flaw.
-
It is when you consider space travel, and trying to exceed conventional speeds.
To the point where there's discussion about how to travel shorter distances by accounting for space-time curvature, due to speed and gravity of objects along the way.
-
This whole discussion started because I said, relative to two frames of reference, meters are different distances.
You have just described length contraction. A one-mile long train will fit into a half mile long tunnel if it is passing through close enough to the speed of light. That's why I linked to the article I did way up there.
-
I think cross-section size is a more significant factor than length when you're trying to fit a train into a tunnel. Making it go faster just makes a bigger boom if it doesn't fit...
I know what you meant.
-
It is when you consider space travel, and trying to exceed conventional speeds.
No it isn't. We have Special and General Relativity precisely to resolve and reconcile cross-frame measurement discrepancies. The existence of such discrepancies is an inherent and demonstrable feature of the universe, and will occur regardless of the choice of measurement units, and is therefore not a flaw in any particular system of units.
To the point where there's discussion about how to travel shorter distances by accounting for space-time curvature, due to speed and gravity of objects along the way.
Not only is there "discussion" of such things; the mathematics required to account for them are baked into real products in everyday use. GPS would not work without relativistic adjustments to all the measurements made.
-
We have Special and General Relativity precisely to resolve and reconcile cross-frame measurement discrepancies.
You've pretty much repeated what I said and then disagreed with it here. It is a problem. A problem that is solved by understanding relativity and calculating for it.
I can imagine, when non-conventional space travel becomes possible, we'll need a better way to measure space and time.
GPS would not work without relativistic adjustments to all the measurements made.
Yes, you have to keep adjusting..
You know what... never mind.
-
I can imagine, when non-conventional space travel becomes possible, we'll need a better way to measure space and time.
Why? What do you know of to suggest that GR won't be up to the job?
